Review: 7th-generation iPod nano does little to excite

Is this just last year's device with a bigger screen?

In 2011, Apple largely left 2010's iPod nano alone, though it did slightly tweak the software to embrace a popular use of the tiny touchscreen device as a watch replacement. A small cottage industry spring up to design and sell all manner of iPod nano "watch bands," but Apple has now abandoned that idea in favor of giving the seventh-generation iPod nano a larger, 2.5" touchscreen capable of playing videos.

Beyond the new screen, the addition of Bluetooth 4.0, and the switch to Apple's smaller Lightning connector, however, very little of the internal hardware changed in the 2012 iPod nano. Software remains largely the same as well, with a similar collection of "apps" all provided by Apple.

Apple has a history of moving in interesting (if odd) design directions with the smaller iPods, and then changing its mind. Remember the buttonless third-generation iPod shuffle? That design didn't fare too well, it seems, and Apple again sells an iPod shuffle with buttons. How about the third-generation "fat" iPod nano? Apple thought a sideways screen would be a good way to add compatibility with video and then-new downloadable iPod games, but the fourth-generation nano returned to the taller "candy bar" design.

What's most odd about the changes Apple made with the seventh-gen nano, however, is that it took an existing, seemingly popular design and got rid of the very elements that made it unique. The integrated clip—handy for those that used the nano while working out—is gone. And the larger size means it won't fit on a handy wrist strap.

Enlarge/ The new iPod nano looks like a mini iPod touch, and is still quite small (seen here with an iPhone 5) despite its larger 2.5-inch touchscreen.

Chris Foresman

What's left is a fairly simple music player that doesn't—at least on the surface—seem all that appealing. And given the iPod's increasingly dwindling sales figures since the introduction of the iPhone, that could end up being a liability in the market. Does the new iPod nano have what it takes to make waves in the current marketplace? Let's find out.

Hardware

As we noted earlier, the internal hardware is largely the same as the sixth-gen nano from 2011. iFixit's usual thorough teardown revealed a nearly identical architecture, including an NXP ARM-based processor, Toshiba NAND flash, and various support chips. The main changes include a Broadcom Bluetooth + FM radio module, support chips for Lightning, and a larger, double-size battery.

On the outside, Apple elongated the case to fit a larger, rectangular 2.5" touchscreen and a small, iPhone-like "home" button. On the left side is a volume rocker, which also doubles as a play/pause button if you push it in the middle. On the top is a power/screen lock button. On the bottom, you'll see the Lightning port and a 3.5mm headphone jack. A small white plastic strip hides the Bluetooth antenna as well.

The anodized aluminum shell is sleek and sturdy, and matches the look of the latest iPod touch. In fact, it seems as if Apple is trying to make the nano into something of a tiny iPod touch. The placement of controls, the overall shape, and the strange "home" button all serve to amplify that feeling.

Enlarge/ As is the case with iOS devices, you can push the power button to lock or unlock the screen, or hold down to power the iPod nano on or off.

Chris Foresman

At 1.1 ounces (a scant 31 grams), the nano is still extremely lightweight, and easily tucks into a pocket. You probably won't even know it's there. But we miss the integrated clip of the sixth-gen nano; without it, you may need some kind of strap or case to hold on to it while exercising.

Enlarge/ Apple is standardizing the new Lightning connector across all its portable devices.

Chris Foresman

Though the vertical dimension is essentially double the previous nano, the seventh-gen device is small, lightweight, feels solid, and looks nice. Our review unit is a pastel, pinkish purple color, but you can also get it in black, silver, blue, green, and yellow, as well as a special "Product Red" color. (Given my experience with the red iPod touch, I can whole-heartedly recommend that color.)

This an incredibly weird development. The 6th gen nano is actually the only Apple device I own, and it's a really nifty little piece of hardware.

I can't for the life of me figure out why they would make it bigger - the tiny size was it's biggest selling point as far as I'm concerned, and the removal of the clip is another weird choice considering it's popularity with runners.

Just seems the wrong step to take with his, since there's little else that's changed about it.

For those thinking the bluetooth might provide some significant utility in some scenarios should probably check this out first

TL;DR bluetooth won't let you do voice recording and won't let you use FM, the required antenna the wired headphones supply disable bluetooth audio out.The activation of voice recording requires headphones with a mic to be attached.

I don't think there's much life in traditional standalone mp3-players. And falling sales of iPods point to that fact. It might be interesting if Apple moved the iPod to a new direction. Keep the shuffle as the uber-cheap option, but turning Nano in to a different kind of device. Maybe a iOS-device with 2.5" screen? A smart watch that works together with iPhone?

It sort of reminds me of the fourth-gen Nano, which is still the most impressive, focused gadget I've ever bought (and the only Apple product I've owned so far). I only recently got my first smartphone, an Android, and it has effectively replaced my iPod, but I used it continuously for four years, and I was nothing but impressed with it. But after four years, I would have expected some more progress than this.

I think the last good nano was the 5th gen. 6th gen was cool solely because of all those "watch" designs.

My one and only iPod was the 3rd gen nano and that was nifty. If the target of these devices are people like fitness buffs, I'm having a hard time justifying the existence of both the shuffle and the nano.

"But for just $50 more, you can get the entry-level fourth-gen iPod touch. It's bigger, sure, and heavier, but it has Wi-Fi and a camera, it can browse the Web and do FaceTime chats, and it can access iOS's vast library of apps."

So for more money you can have something bigger and heavier and that performs all the same tasks that your phone (probably) already does?

Since most modern phones will act as decent music devices it seems that size is all that stand-alone players can differentiate themselves on.

I wouldn't mind something like this to replace my old clunky Classic, but their stubbornness in sticking with the 16 GB capacity for the last several models kills me. What I want is something small that just does music and will hold *all* of my music, and these Nanos consistently fail in that last regard.

TL;DR: It does what it's supposed to but isn't very exciting, so we wrote 27 paragraphs about it.

I must say that I found this quite bizarre as well, and at one point I almost pulled a tl;dr on the article itself.

I bought the ipod 4G on release day in my country, and I prefer having a dedicated music player that happens to be a good multimedia device as well. Yes yes say what you will about smartphones, but where I live buying a really expensive smartphone is pretty stupid due to expensive data bundles...

Back to my point, i'm not sure what Apple are trying to do here? Buffing up Nano's to Multimedia status like they did with the ipod?

The biggest draw back isn't even mentioned. The 6th gen had up to 16GB of storage, this bigger one also has only 16GB of storage.

I don't agree that it's necessarily the biggest drawback, or even necessarily a drawback at all. 16GB is as much storage as any nano has ever had. At this point, its limited storage should be no surprise. My first generation iPod nano was 2GB—the horror!

I like to think it's a matter of scalability. That the'yre putting an effort to make the touchscreen on their product lineups match and that way apps that can run on the iPod touch/iPhone/iPod Nano can do so without a blurry, jagged image.

I really think Apple missed an opportunity for a new product segment of smart watches with the last generation nano. While it had a few kinks to work out to optimize it as a watch, this is the generation that really could have had an impact.

For a nearly weightless music player, I prefer the shuffle for the gym and its tactile buttons to change songs on the fly without having to look at the device. Anything bigger might as well be a smartphone or Touch.

I think there's a lot of people who will be looking at this device and wondering exactly when/how they would use it. Not really the type of problem Apple looks to have when rolling out a new generation of hardware -- iPhone = all-in-one flagship product -- iPod Touch = media player/gaming/iOS gateway -- Shuffle = nearly weightless exercise companion w/tactile buttons -- iPod Nano = awkward Christmas present???

The major draw of this isn't supposed to be the features it doesn't have.. the major draw of this new Nano is supposed to be (in my estimation) a cheaper, more affordable iProduct. I have an Android phone that does all the things that you're lamenting as missing from this device. Sure, it sucks carrying two devices, but the reason I use Android over iOS is because I prefer doing the things that are missing on my phone. If I was willing to compromise for an all-in-one experience, I'd get the Touch or the iPhone. Well, no I wouldn't.. I like my Android too much, but I am not willing to compromise on the music side either. I also want what Apple brings to the table as far as music management and features (remember playback position). I have yet to find a good Android solution to work with my music the way I want.

The Nano has always appeared to me to be a cheaper iteration of the iPod, for folks who don't want to pay for features they don't use or already have. I have the previous gen Nano (I think, I can't keep track of the versions anymore) and will probably have it for 5 years, like my last iPod. Those who want the latest and greatest with all the bells and whistles will get it, and those who don't will get this.

This an incredibly weird development. The 6th gen nano is actually the only Apple device I own, and it's a really nifty little piece of hardware.

I can't for the life of me figure out why they would make it bigger - the tiny size was it's biggest selling point as far as I'm concerned, and the removal of the clip is another weird choice considering it's popularity with runners.

Just seems the wrong step to take with his, since there's little else that's changed about it.

Exactly. They took away exactly what made the original device unique - small size, without even adding anything. They already have the touch in a slightly larger package which leaves this version with little purpose.

They've already tried emphasizing video in a device this size and backtracked once. Why are they trying it again.

Several months ago, I felt a need to replace my iPod classic, to something that felt more portable, but I was unsure as my need wasn't urgent. What convinced me to act tho' was the rumor that the next Nano would have this larger design.

I saw the ability to wear my 6th gen Nano on my wrist as a HUGE benefit, and to my surprise it is even more convenient than I then imagined.

Apple missed nothing here, and all of your collective complaining is akin to the SNL skit from last weekend.

This is a music player. It has 16gb of storage. It plays music. Last I heard, it played music just fine. The last generation device was ridiculed until a 3rd party cleverly made a watch band for it to turn it into swag.

There are other models of iPod at different price points that give you the functionality you "crave". This is a small music player. It fits the bill. It's small, and it plays music.

Oh, I've got to carry two devices? You won't even notice the freaking thing in your pocket. And, I'm sure you're all into that FM thing since terrestrial radio is doing so well these days.

What would you like them to do with a music player? Next year, it will have a direct link to the Martian exploration station and someone will complain that they didn't have a link to the latest worm hole science.

But for just $50 more, you can get the entry-level fourth-gen iPod touch. It's bigger, sure, and heavier, but it has Wi-Fi and a camera, it can browse the Web and do FaceTime chats, and it can access iOS's vast library of apps.

But it makes a terrible music player, because it has no tactile play/pause controls. Unless you count yanking the headphone cable out, which not all apps have honored consistently in the past. (That earned them an uninstall, so I dunno if they ever fixed it. When I want to stop playing I want to stop NOW without having to look at the device.) Bluetooth doesn't count either, because the audio quality is not there.

But in spite of the lackluster music performance, I really wouldn't give up apps+wifi.

I can't for the life of me figure out why they would make it bigger - the tiny size was it's biggest selling point as far as I'm concerned, and the removal of the clip is another weird choice considering it's popularity with runners.

I've had an iPod classic for years. If Apple kept approximately the same size of device I would have certainly purchased a new Nano. No part of me understands why they would think bigger is better for their line with the Nano moniker.

Oh, I've got to carry two devices? You won't even notice the freaking thing in your pocket. And, I'm sure you're all into that FM thing since terrestrial radio is doing so well these days.

Speaking as an avid BBC Radio 3/4 listener, there are many parts of the world where terrestrial radio is doing well.

But I agree with your other points regarding the 7G nano. I own a 6G. It's a fiddly little thing. The clip isn't particularly strong, so - without resorting to 3rd party solutions - I'm unconvinced about it's usefulness as a workout/running device.

I thought having the nano like a watch was amazing. Eventually it would evolve to be able to make basic calls. Why elongate the screen again like the original nano? Feels like a backwards step, and one to kill off the businesses spun off with watch straps etc..

I know it's an iDevice, but it doesn't seem like you're getting a lot for $150. Sure, it does a great job of being small, playing music and videos and has a battery life that lasts forever, but there are devices with 7 inch screens for 50 bucks more.

I'm sure making everything small takes a lot of design and manufacturing effort, but I'm not sure that the price is justified for the amount of "stuff" you get.

I was under the impression from the initial announcement that the play pause button supported some sort of gestures to perform other commands, but I guess not? Am I the only one who skips tracks all the time and doesn't want to have to look at the ipod when I'm in the gym?

I don't care much for flashing my music player every time I want to adjust volume, pause (try using that thing inside a pocket, it's no better than the wheel, except for volume control I'll admit) or change track (and no, I don't care for the crappy remote and the crappy earphones either so that's not an option).

I'll stay with my 4th gen until the battery dies on me I guess, especially since the capacity hasn't increased.

*edited for clarity on which physical controls and why the existing ones seems lacking to me

Can anyone recommend an mp3 player that is reasonably priced and isn't matchbox-sized or tied to iTunes? This is for an older relative who doesn't need portability nor any bells and whistles like video playback, bluetooth etc.

This is kind of a shame, my new puppy got a hold of my old nano a few days ago so I'm in the market for a new mp3 player to run and lift with. The biggest selling point for me was the clip and size. I was able to just clip it onto my belt and go. I wasn't a fan of the shuffle with its lack of touch screen and being able to create playlists etc, so the nano filled that void. It was small, easy to use, and the clip would stay where I put it.

As for the person going on about the fm. I'm one of those people who never can find a song I want to listen toit in my gigs of music so I listen to the radio a lot. It was super nice to be able to get my run in and catch the presidential debates the other night.